I personally dont think sony is a good camera company... They've only joined the market to make digital camera where as canon has been in the market for a long time.
_________________

gregsan wrote:

No Way!!! Nikon makes way better lenses which is the crux of a good "high-end" SLR camera. The D2H and D70 are both awesome and their D2X is going to kick Canon's butt!! I own an S400 and a D70.

I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 5700, which I don't think they make anymore. The higher-end Coolpix line is really good! Awhile back, a professional photographer friend of mine borrowed my 5700 for her Norway/Iceland trip, and she was totally envious of it.

--- groink

bmwracer wrote:

Canon's lenses are just as good, if not better... I think they were the first to introduce aspherical lenses in the photography market, which is considered to be the best design optically.... Guh. Now I can't talk politics or photography with you, else there'll be an argument...

Blasphemy!!

We can still talk about photography. Apparently just not about equipment!!

Once you get into the high end, well, it's a toss up. Some people want the best lenses, other people want the best features. Nikon is the traditional leader in lenses, but things are moving so quickly now that it's hard to tell. Canon is probably the undisputed leader in features (some useless), I mean what other camera has WiFi? It's just crazy! Anyway, the starter of this thread would probably be best served with an entry level dSLR before moving on and shelling out 2500+.
_________________

listen to you guys ravo on is giving me a headache

i got a budget kodak, it would be fine BUT it doesnt let you control the compression which bugs me, i hate looking at the pics at normal size and seeing losta blurry crap i love crisp, clear quality!

jax wrote:

listen to you guys ravo on is giving me a headache i got a budget kodak, it would be fine BUT it doesnt let you control the compression which bugs me, i hate looking at the pics at normal size and seeing losta blurry crap i love crisp, clear quality!

The blurryness could be due to the focusing on your camera or the MPs.

How many MP is your camera, and what do you consider "normal" size?

jax wrote:

listen to you guys ravo on is giving me a headache

Well there's an easy solution to that.

thetenken wrote:

Anyway, the starter of this thread would probably be best served with an entry level dSLR before moving on and shelling out 2500+.

It would've been nice to mention a price ceiling, I guess, since we're recommending some cameras in the thousand dollar range...

If I were to drop some money down on a digital camera right now, this would be it. The Sony DSC-V1 for $299.99 no tax and no shipping.

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=13086612

I have the one that's 2 genrations before it, (DSC-S75) and I've really enjoyed my camera.
_________________

gregsan wrote:

The blurryness could be due to the focusing on your camera or the MPs. How many MP is your camera, and what do you consider "normal" size?

my camera is 3.1 and by normal size i mean looking at the picture that the resolution it was taken at. sorta hard to explain. like i use a program called infraveiw or something, and it opens the image in the default size (doesnt minimise it to fit screen) i know it doesnt really matter becuase you will not really send people pics at that reso but yeah. personal prefrence

blurriness indicates that the camera is out of focus. If a jpg is compressed too high, the signs're blockiness around edges. What was the distance of the subject in the photo? If it's close, did you make sure that you had macro on?
_________________

jax wrote:

my camera is 3.1 and by normal size i mean looking at the picture that the resolution it was taken at. sorta hard to explain. like i use a program called infraveiw or something, and it opens the image in the default size (doesnt minimise it to fit screen) i know it doesnt really matter becuase you will not really send people pics at that reso but yeah. personal prefrence

Yeah you just mean 100% "zoom" in an image program. It may not be the size you e-mail at...but when it comes to printing it's pretty important.

A review eof the Canon 20D from Digital Photography Review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/

New Canon EOS 400D/Rebel XTi:http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp

Another preview on the 400D here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/XTI/XTIA.HTM

Cool. I should have figured there would be photography thread. I'll probably be posting some of my pics here. *bookmarks thread*


Now, BMW, don't get sad on me....I own a Nikon D70.

(Easier to mooch equipment from my friends. )

if my transmission hasn't given out, i was going to get a D70s.

i own a canon sd500.. it's a purse camera... i plan to get a better camera one of these days..

dochira wrote:

Now, BMW, don't get sad on me....I own a Nikon D70. (Easier to mooch equipment from my friends. )

Gasp...!

I've always used/owned Canons...

A coworker here has the Canon 5D... Awesome camera.

If you can afford the $3K (body only) entry fee.

bmwracer wrote:

Gasp...! I've always used/owned Canons...

I've read.

bmwracer wrote:

A coworker here has the Canon 5D... Awesome camera. If you can afford the $3K (body only) entry fee.

Damn. That's what pro photogs (weddings, etc) use, right?